11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(6) permits a claim that litigation sanctions are nondischargeable when the complaint plausibly alleges willful and malicious injury.

Omar Weaver Rosales - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-07-09(a)(6)

If Plaintiffs’ Complaint is accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have pleaded all elements for a willful and malicious injury claim and therefore state a claim for nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(6) which warrants Plaintiffs to proceed to discovery.

Section 523(a)(6) requires tortious conduct for a breach-of-contract debt to be nondischargeable; a zero-damages conversion verdict does not foreclose that finding when the jury was instructed against duplicate damages.

Zeeb v. Farah · filed 2020-07-09(a)(6)

The jury instruction on duplicative damages suggests that the jury did not consider whether the breach of contract damages could also have been awarded as conversion damages, especially in light of the fact that the jury specifically found that all of the elements for conversion were met. This left the bankruptcy court free to determine the extent to which the breach of contract damages could have also been awarded as conversion damages. Thus, the bankruptcy court was not precluded from finding that Zeeb’s breach of contract also involved tortious conduct.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a debtor’s willful and malicious conversion of a creditor’s collateral.

Bank of Rantoul v. Adcock · filed 2020-07-17(a)(6)

The Court concludes that under §523(a)(6), the Bank suffered a loss due to willful and malicious conversion of its collateral in the amount of $78,560.05.

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt from discharge when a debtor withholds payment for defective work without intent to harm the creditor.

Jordan v. Walters · filed 2020-07-23(a)(6)

Therefore, withholding the final payment does not evidence a willful and malicious intent to harm Jordan.

Section 523(a)(6)’s maliciousness requirement is satisfied when the debtor acts in conscious disregard of her duties or without just cause or excuse.

Rose v. Pavletich · filed 2020-07-30(a)(6)

As the bankruptcy court correctly stated, the inquiry asks whether the debtor acted “in conscious disregard of [her] duties or without just cause or excuse.”

Section 523(a)(6) permits a debtor to show that an otherwise willful and malicious injury was sufficiently justified under the circumstances.

LaFavers v. Arguello · filed 2020-07-30(a)(6)

For the reasons so stated, the court finds that Arguello’s actions were not sufficiently justified under the circumstances and that the debt is not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a conversion debt from discharge when the debtor’s wrongful intent makes the injury willful and malicious.

All In One Trading, Inc., a California corporation v. Chaparala · filed 2020-08-03(a)(6)

The court determines that these actions show that Chaparala committed the tort of conversion with the requisite wrongful intent to render the damages arising from the tort nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6) as the jury’s findings of intentional tortious misconduct establish willfulness and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor intended the injury, not merely that the debtor issued checks that were later returned for insufficient funds.

Professional Garage Door Systems, Inc. v. Rishel, Jr · filed 2020-08-04(a)(6)

Because a plaintiff under § 523(a)(6) must prove the defendant’s intent (a “willful injury”), and because this Plaintiff has failed to do so, judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant on the § 523(a)(6) claim.

Section 523(a)(6) can except a litigation sanction from discharge, but the creditor must prove the debtor’s state of mind; a finding that the conduct was frivolous is insufficient by itself.

Ford, Jr. v. Landon · filed 2020-08-11(a)(6)

While a court sanction for misconduct in litigation can be the basis for a finding of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(6), evidence of the debtor’s state of mind is required.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully and maliciously injures another; a prior judgment can establish those elements through issue preclusion.

Kanaga v. Landon · filed 2020-08-11(a)(6)

The Court finds that under Oklahoma law, Plaintiffs have met their burden to show that the Sanctions Judgment makes findings of fact that are equivalent to the elements it must prove under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires separate proof that an injury was willful and malicious.

Smith v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah · filed 2020-08-18(a)(6)

This Court concludes that proof of a “willful and malicious injury” under § 523(a)(6) requires proof of two distinct elements ‒ the injury must be both “willful” and “malicious.”

Section 523(a)(6) requires factual allegations making a willful and malicious injury plausible; alleging conversion alone is insufficient.

Bailey v. Amaro · filed 2020-09-11(a)(6)

As noted above, however, there must be some factual allegations in the complaint to make it plausible that the withholding of the Exhibit A Property was willful and malicious.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge only to the extent the debt arises from a debtor’s willful and malicious injury.

Itria Ventures LLC v. O'Keefe · filed 2020-09-11(a)(6)

To be held nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6), the nondischargeable debt itself must arise from the willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for intentional injury from discharge only if the injury was not sufficiently justified under the circumstances.

Spears v. Hays · filed 2020-09-16(a)(6)

While it is true that the Defendant failed to comply meaningfully with the requisite procedural rules regarding undisputed material facts under Local District Court Rule CV-56, the Court is still under an obligation to evaluate the evidentiary submissions of the parties and the summary judgment evidence of the Defendant is sufficient to place the burden on the Plaintiff to prove her allegations at trial, particularly when considered in the light of the three-part test invoked by Vollbrecht which is applicable to this dispute under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully and maliciously injures another person or that person’s property interest.

Boscarino v. Borsellino · filed 2020-09-24(a)(6)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that all of the elements under § 523(a)(6) have been established and that Boscarino’s judgment debt is not dischargeable pursuant to that statutory exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for willful and malicious injury from discharge, and findings necessary to a prior judgment can establish those elements through collateral estoppel.

Buchanan v. Parks · filed 2020-09-28(a)(6)

All five elements of collateral estoppel have been satisfied and the Tennessee Judgment is therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

A Section 523(a)(6) claim for willful and malicious injury in Chapter 13 becomes material only if the debtor seeks a hardship discharge.

Econocare, Inc. v. Spyropoulos · filed 2020-09-29(a)(6)

The question of whether Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff involved here is within the realm of Section 523(a)(6) will only become material if Defendant moves for a hardship discharge, which Defendant has not done and may indeed never do so. Therefore, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication.

Section 523(a)(6) does not require proof of fraud for a debt arising from willful and malicious injury.

McAfee III, in his capacity as Trustee of Marital v. Harman · filed 2020-09-30(a)(6)

Proof of fraud is not necessary under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for conversion of another’s property from discharge when the injury is willful and malicious.

Townsend v. Willman, Jr. · filed 2020-10-05(a)(6)

In short, Plaintiff has met her burden of proof with respect to intent. Debtors have introduced no admissible evidence to the contrary. Further, all elements of a non-dischargeable claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) have been established. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on her section 523(a)(6) claim.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for willful and malicious conversion from discharge even when the amount of damages remains undetermined.

Iceland Sports Complex, LLC v. Richardson · filed 2020-10-06(a)(6)

Nevertheless, this Court can still find that the eventual damages, which are appropriately determined by the Jefferson Circuit Court at trial, are a nondischargeable debt because they are damages for willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge the portion of a debt arising from deliberate misrepresentations about project costs that willfully and maliciously injure another’s property.

Rasmussen v. LaMantia · filed 2020-10-09(a)(6)

Some part of that claim is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully and maliciously injures another person.

Doiron v. Cruz · filed 2020-10-13(a)(6)

The Court finds Dr. Cruz willfully, maliciously, and deliberately injured the Plaintiff and her professional reputation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6) require proof of the applicable intent; a conversion judgment alone does not except the debt from discharge.

Compton v. Moschell · filed 2020-10-09

Mr. Compton’s conversion claim against the Debtor is not excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully injures another and the harm from the debtor’s conduct is substantially certain to occur.

Scott v. Schmitz · filed 2020-10-22(a)(6)

Defendant acted willfully, by invading a legally protected interest of Plaintiff, and maliciously because in hitting Plaintiff, harm was substantially certain to occur.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a willful injury; an injury the debtor could not prevent despite reasonable efforts is not willful.

Walnut Meadows, LLC v. Tzabari · filed 2020-11-04(a)(6)

In short, where the Debtor made every reasonable effort within his ability to avoid injuring the Plaintiff and, despite those efforts was unable to prevent injury to the Plaintiff, I hold that injury suffered was not “willful” under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires evidence of an intended or substantially certain injury; conversion or breach of contract alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Ascentium Capital LLC v. Rigoulot · filed 2020-11-13(a)(6)

Similarly, an aggrieved creditor must show more than conversion resulting from a debtor’s breach of contract. Although similar in language to intentional torts, Section 523(a)(6) creates a narrower category of conduct.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of willful and malicious injury; a defamation judgment alone does not establish that requirement.

Mazzara v. Provencher · filed 2020-12-04(a)(6)

The state court record, however, was insufficient to conclude that Debtor’s conduct was willful and malicious under § 523(a)(6).

A § 523(a)(6) dog-bite claim can survive dismissal when the alleged facts plausibly support a willful and malicious injury.

Wallace v. Frye · filed 2020-12-08(a)(6)

Here, the court must engage in a fact intensive inquiry to determine whether this dog attack can ultimately satisfy the requirements of § 523(a)(6). That, however, is not the court’s purpose in adjudging the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s complaint. At this time, the court is satisfied that the complaint states a plausible claim to relief.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully and maliciously injures another; a prior judgment can establish malice, and circumstantial evidence can establish willfulness.

Silas v. Arden · filed 2021-01-27(a)(6)

Arden tried to have the damages he owed discharged in bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy code does not allow the discharge of debts “for willful and malicious injury.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). ... The resulting judgment forecloses any argument that Arden did not injure Silas with malice. Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err by preventing Arden from relitigating the issue of malice. ... The court concluded on the basis of its findings that Arden acted with “a specific intent to harm,” and thus, willfully. That was not error.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from discharge; allegations that the debtor intentionally sought to cause financial harm can state a plausible claim.

White v. White · filed 2021-02-08(a)(6)

Accordingly, the Amended Complaint states a plausible claim for relief under Section 523(a)(6), and the Motion will be denied as to the Section 523(a)(6) claim.

Section 523(a)(6) can except a contract judgment from discharge when the conduct accompanying the breach causes a willful and malicious injury.

Luebbert v. Global Control Systems, Inc. · filed 2021-02-09(a)(6)

The mere fact that recovery for wrongful conduct was based in contract and not in tort—despite being possible in both under the same set of facts—does not prevent the resulting judgment debt from being exempt from discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof that the debtor intended to cause injury and specifically targeted the creditor; a genuine dispute about that intent prevents summary judgment.

Benjamin W. Vanhorn · filed 2021-02-25(a)(6)

Viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant’s actions were willful and malicious; that is, that Defendant specifically sold the Skid Loader with the intent to cause Plaintiff financial harm.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof that the debtor intended the injury and acted maliciously toward the creditor; a genuine dispute about intent prevents summary judgment for the creditor.

Upper Explorerland Regional Planning Commission v. Vanhorn · filed 2021-02-25(a)(6)

Viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant’s actions were willful and malicious; that is, that Defendant specifically sold the Skid Loader with the intent to cause Plaintiff financial harm. Thus, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact with regard to Defendant’s intent exists, such that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of both a willful act and a malicious injury to except a debt from discharge.

Gerlich v. Barwick · filed 2021-03-04(a)(6)

To prevail under Section 523(a)(6), a creditor must prove both a willful act and a malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) can except litigation sanctions from discharge when preclusive findings establish that the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the opposing parties.

Telos Ventures Group PLLC v. Short · filed 2021-03-04(a)(6)

As set forth more fully below, the State Court Rulings have collateral estoppel effect, and, except for the Rule 33 damages awarded in the third appeal, they establish that the Debtor caused willful and malicious injuries to Plaintiffs under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts contract damages from discharge when they are caused by willful and malicious injury to property.

Sergejev v. Alderman · filed 2021-03-08(a)(6)

In other words, because Defendants breached the lease by willfully and maliciously damaging Plaintiff’s property, it is appropriate to include the contract damages caused by that breach as part of the non-dischargeable debt under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires an intentional act meant to cause injury or substantially certain to do so; a general alter ego verdict does not establish that requirement.

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Henry C. Hardin, III · filed 2021-03-09(a)(6)

The jury instructions and jury verdict do not satisfy the element of willfulness under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) treats a Florida criminal battery conviction as establishing a malicious act for purposes of excepting a debt from discharge.

Hoban v. Campbell · filed 2021-03-10(a)(6)

More importantly, conviction of the crime of battery under Florida law always involves a malicious act within the meaning of section 523(a)(6).

An assault conviction does not establish willfulness or maliciousness under § 523(a)(6) through collateral estoppel when the plea record does not show whether the assault was intentional or reckless.

Heilbronn v. Plaza · filed 2021-03-19(a)(6)

Because “debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of § 523(a)(6)[,]” Kawaauhau, 523 U.S. at 64, and the record does not clearly establish that Heilbron was convicted of committing an intentional rather than a reckless assault, I vacate the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and remand for a trial on whether Heilbron’s conduct satisfies the willfulness element of § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of willful and malicious injury; disputed evidence of the debtor’s intent can preclude summary judgment.

Elliot v. MUCKLOW · filed 2021-03-23(a)(6)

Thus, the Court does not have sufficient circumstantial evidence at this time to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Mucklow acted willfully and maliciously or that he acted with “actual intent to cause injury.” In addition, the exhibits provided by Ms. Elliot do not satisfy all of the elements required by this Court for a showing of nondischargeability under either § 523(a)(2) or § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor sold collateral without authorization; the injury must be willful and malicious.

First Bank of Linden v. Gunter · filed 2021-02-12(a)(6)

Section 523(a)(6) does not create strict liability for the unauthorized prepetition sale of collateral by the Defendant.

Section 523(a)(6) requires the debtor to have committed the willful and malicious injury; another person’s conduct cannot be imputed to the debtor.

Moss v. Gurbacki · filed 2021-03-30(a)(6)

Unlike exceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(2), § 523(a)(6) requires the act causing the willful and malicious injury be performed “by the debtor”. It cannot be imputed.

A creditor cannot obtain summary judgment under § 523(a)(6) when material facts about the debtor’s willful and malicious intent remain disputed.

Halstead v. MUCKLOW · filed 2021-03-30(a)(6)

Thus, the Court does not have sufficient circumstantial evidence at this time to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Mucklow acted willfully and maliciously or that he acted with “actual intent to cause injury.”

A creditor cannot obtain summary judgment under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(6) when material factual disputes remain about the elements of fraud or willful and malicious injury.

Adkins v. MUCKLOW · filed 2021-03-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

In addition, the exhibits provided by Ms. Adkins do not satisfy all of the elements required by this Court for a showing of nondischargeability under either § 523(a)(2) or § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when it results from the debtor’s willful and malicious injury to another person or that person’s property.

Barton v. Carthan · filed 2021-04-13(a)(6)

A debt is non-dischargeable under §523(a)(6) if it results from debtor's willful and malicious injury to another or to the property of another.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a debt arising from theft under Alaska law because theft constitutes a willful and malicious injury.

White Environmental Consultants, Inc. v. Skupa · filed 2021-04-14(a)(6)

In contrast, summary judgment is appropriate under § 523(a)(6). Theft does constitute a willful and malicious injury as it is based upon an intent to deprive another of its property.

Section 523(a)(6) requires an injury to be both willful and malicious; an accidental touching does not qualify even if it was malicious.

Bradsher v. Watson · filed 2021-04-15(a)(6)

As a result, Plaintiffs have not established that the battery claim was a willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires intent to cause injury; a prior judgment finding intentional misconduct alone does not establish nondischargeability.

NITV Federal Services, LLC v. Herring, III · filed 2021-04-22(a)(6)

The Florida District Court therefore found intentional conduct warranting additional damages, but that does not equate to a finding of “intent to injure” or malice under §523(a)(6).

State court findings that a debtor committed conversion with fraud, malice, and intent to cause economic injury can establish a willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6).

Delannoy v. Woodlawn Colonial, L.P. · filed 2021-05-13(a)(6)

Not only do these findings demonstrate that Delannoy’s conversion constituted a “willful and malicious injury” for purposes of § 523(a)(6), see Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998); In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008), but they were certainly not “entirely unnecessary” to the award of punitive damages in the state proceeding, Lucido, 795 P.2d at 1226.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge debts arising from a debtor’s willful and malicious injury to another person or their property.

Crossman v. Burke · filed 2021-05-18(a)(6)

Because Burke willfully and maliciously acted to cause emotional and physical harm during the incident on April 30, 2009, I find any debt resulting from the physical and mental damage to the Plaintiff is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s conduct causes injury with an objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm.

PACCAR Financial Corp. v. Dhaliwal · filed 2021-05-18(a)(6)

Here, the evidence shows that it was substantially certain that the debtors’ actions in not advising plaintiff the location of the Truck, and the concealment of the proceeds from the sale of their real property were certain to result in harm; therefore, plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to relief under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt from discharge for breach of contractual duties without evidence that the debtor intended to injure the creditor.

MegaForce LLC v. Beach · filed 2021-06-15(a)(6)

These allegations fail as a matter of law; they allege nothing but a breach of express and/or implied contractual duty. There is no evidence to support a finding that Beach intended to injure MegaForce, willfully and maliciously as required by § 523(a)(6) or otherwise.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge damages for injuries proximately caused by a debtor’s willful and malicious conduct, including injuries that follow from the intended injury.

Perry v. Judge · filed 2021-07-20(a)(6)

As set forth above, Perry’s injuries proximately resulted from Judge’s intentional and unjustified aggressive strike on Perry, and the damages arising therefrom were properly excepted from Judge’s discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a preexisting debt from discharge based on a later alleged willful and malicious injury.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Crop Production S v. Gilbert · filed 2021-07-20(a)(6)

Nutrien Ag’s allegation—that Defendant’s execution of the Assignment constitutes a willful and malicious injury— fails as a matter of law to state a cause of action under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) permits a creditor to pursue nondischargeability when alleged disposal of collateral supports an inference of willful and malicious injury.

InterBank v. Miller · filed 2021-08-02(a)(6)

The disposal of fifty-four pieces of property, which Debtors had contemporaneously offered as collateral for a refinance of their debt, is enough to create an inference of willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires the debtor to have committed the willful and malicious injury; vicarious liability for another person’s acts alone does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Bookter v. Brooks · filed 2021-08-06(a)(6)

Under § 523(a)(6) the willful and malicious acts must be committed by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(6) requires the willful and malicious injury to have been committed by the debtor.

Paulsen v. Davis · filed 2021-08-13(a)(6)

The plaintiff’s claim against Sara fails because to be excepted from discharge, the willful and malicious injury must have been committed “by the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor purposefully inflicted injury or acted with substantial certainty that injury would result.

Brian McCabe v. · filed 2021-08-18(a)(6)

A debt is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code if it results from a debtor’s “willful and malicious injury,” which requires a finding that “the actor purposefully inflicted the injury or acted with substantial certainty that injury would result.” In re Conte, 33 F. 3d 303, 305 (3d Cir. 1994).

Section 523(a)(6) requires an intent to cause injury, not merely an intent to perform an act that causes injury.

Carter v. Stoddard · filed 2021-08-23(a)(6)

As established by the U.S. Supreme Court and amplified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for a debt to be nondischargeable as a willful and malicious injury, the conduct of the debtor must be done with the intention to cause the injury, not merely intentionally act, which act causes the injury.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts arising from willful and malicious injury from discharge, including damages caused by intentional spoliation of evidence and perjury.

American College of Education, Inc. v. Williams · filed 2020-12-01(a)(6)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C, § 523(a)(6), the damages awarded to ACE in the Federal Court Judgment are nondischargeable because they arose from Mr. Williams’ willful and malicious conduct, namely spoliation of evidence and perjury.

Section 523(a)(6) permits a nondischargeability claim based on a debtor’s knowing and wrongful disposal of a creditor’s collateral to the creditor’s detriment.

First Pryority Bank v. Woods · filed 2021-09-16(a)(6)

Thus, one can reasonably infer that Woods knowingly and wrongfully disposed of the Bank’s collateral, to the detriment of the Bank, which is sufficient to state a plausible claim under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for tortious interference with business relations from discharge when the interference constitutes willful and malicious injury.

Stanley Supply & Tool, Inc. v. Smallwood · filed 2021-09-28(a)(6)

This Court concludes that the elements of tortious inference with business relations under New York law satisfies the willful and malicious injury elements of § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s conversion of secured collateral causes an injury that is both willful and malicious.

Itria Ventures, LLC v. O'Keefe · filed 2021-09-30(a)(6)

For this reason, and the other reasons described in the Bankr. MDO, (Bankr. MDO at 15-19), Bankruptcy Court did not err in determining that O’Keefe acted willfully with respect to his conversion of the Company’s secured collateral.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a willful and malicious injury.

Menges v. Collins · filed 2021-10-07(a)(6)

Based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the Court concludes that the Arbitration Award is a debt for a willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury; a prior battery judgment can establish willfulness, but a punitive damages verdict based on alternative grounds does not necessarily establish malice.

Simmons, Jr. v. Wiles · filed 2021-10-13(a)(6)

The issue of whether the injury inflicted upon plaintiff by defendant was willful within the meaning of § 523(a)(6) has been determined. ... Given that the jury could have but was not required to find satisfaction of the “malicious” element, and because there is no way this court can discern whether it did so find, the court cannot apply issue preclusion to the question of whether the injury inflicted by plaintiff upon defendant was malicious, such that the corresponding debt must be deemed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(6) requires willful and malicious injury, but an underlying state court complaint need not use those words for the claim to survive summary judgment.

Bartlett Family Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Robben · filed 2021-10-21(a)(6)

The fact that the state law complaint does not allege willful and malicious injury is insufficient to support summary judgment. The Court must be presented with facts that demonstrate an essential element required to support a judgment is missing or the evidence relied on by the Bartlett Parties is insufficient.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement from discharge, while § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury, including the loss of stolen cash.

Camp Inn Lodge, LLC v. Kirvan · filed 2021-10-26(a)(4), (a)(6)

Finding Kirvan’s objections unpersuasive, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s finding that his debt is nondischargeable under the § 523(a)(4) embezzlement exception. ... Properly analyzing Kirvan’s subjective intent under the two-pronged standard, we hold that he acted both willfully and maliciously. Thus, the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury; an unpaid debt alone does not qualify.

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. VanHuss · filed 2021-10-27(a)(6)

All creditors who are not paid presumably suffer some injury. Not all nonpayments, however, are intended to inflict injury or occur without just cause or in conscious disregard of one’s duties. Sometimes, as here, businesses fail, run out of money, and cannot pay all of their debts. Under such circumstances, the provisions of §523(a)(6) are just simply not implicated.

Section 523(a)(6)’s willfulness requirement is met when the debtor knows injury is substantially certain to result from his conduct.

Simas v. Powell · filed 2021-11-10(a)(6)

These actions support the bankruptcy court’s finding and are sufficient to show that Mr. Simas knew the natural consequences of his actions and that they would cause harm to appellees. Thus, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that appellant’s conduct was willful under Section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge for willful and malicious injury when the creditor proves an objective substantial certainty of harm or the debtor’s subjective motive to cause harm.

VL Wallace Investments, LLC v. Hartman · filed 2021-11-16(a)(6)

While there are some concerning facts in this case, Mr. Hartman has provided credible explanations for most of them, and the Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden to except its debt from discharge under section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for copyright infringement from discharge when the debtor knowingly uses protected works despite the owner’s express refusal and thereby causes willful and malicious injury.

Scott v. Robinson · filed 2021-12-02(a)(6)

As mentioned above, not every instance of intentional infringement of copyright will meet the test of willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Based on the specific facts presented herein, however, the Court determines that the Debtor’s actions in knowingly displaying Dr. Scott’s works despite Pastor Scott’s express admonition not to do so sufficiently overlaps with the standard required to support a finding of nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor claiming injury from converted collateral to prove the collateral’s value at the time of conversion.

Zolnier v. Collins · filed 2021-12-06(a)(6)

Namely, Dr. Collins has not pointed to any evidence relating to the value of the encumbered property at the time of conversion. We thus agree with the bankruptcy court that Dr. Collins failed to prove his case and therefore affirm its judgment.

Section 523(a)(6)’s malice requirement is satisfied by a finding of actual malice.

DEAN v. CLAVET · filed 2021-12-07(a)(6)

I conclude that a finding of actual malice suffices.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to compensate a creditor for a debtor’s willful and malicious fraud on the court.

In re: David Austin Tolliver · filed 2021-12-20(a)(6)

Thus, the bankruptcy court properly determined that the $295,490.76 in attorneys’ fees and $72,103.78 in costs is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof that the debtor deliberately or intentionally injured the creditor’s property interest; missing collateral alone does not establish willful injury.

Pawnee Leasing Corporation v. Lauer, Sr. · filed 2022-01-19(a)(6)

Pawnee has not proven that the Debtor’s conduct was “willful” -- i.e., that he acted deliberately and intentionally in a manner that was substantially certain to injure Pawnee’s property interest in the containers.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts an assault debt from discharge when the debtor’s punches were substantially certain to cause injury, the debtor intended harm, and the attack was unjustified.

Christopher Lee Weatherford - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-01-19(a)(6)

This court concludes that the undisputed summary judgment evidence establishes as a matter of law that the Debtor’s punches were objectively certain to cause harm and that the Debtor acted with a subjective motive to cause harm.

Section 523(a)(6) requires injury by the debtor; another person’s conduct generally cannot be imputed to the debtor.

Sentry Select Insurance Company, on behalf of itse v. Crites-Osmun · filed 2022-01-26(a)(6)

As Defendant argues, there is consensus that the injury must be by the debtor and that, absent certain circumstances, the conduct of others cannot be imputed to the debtor for purposes of § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires willful injury; a debt arising from conduct that may have been grossly negligent does not satisfy that requirement.

Scranton Laminated Labels, Inc. v. Florimonte · filed 2022-02-22(a)(6)

And as the Supreme Court clearly commanded in Kawaauhau, an act of gross negligence is not “willful” within the meaning of § 523(a)(6) and cannot be held nondischargeable under that provision.

Section 523(a)(6) requires allegations of injury to a creditor or the creditor’s property to state a claim for nondischargeability.

Rosen v. Case · filed 2022-02-25(a)(6)

Absent sufficient allegations of injury, a claim under § 523(a)(6) fails to state a cause of action.

Section 523(a)(6) requires the debtor to intend the injury; negligent or reckless conduct alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

M. v. Randlett · filed 2022-02-25(a)(6)

Non- dischargeability under § 523(a)(6) requires that a debtor intend the injury and there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, upon which the court can make that finding at this stage of the proceeding.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a judgment debt from discharge to the extent it is for willful and malicious injury, including interest and costs on that portion.

Eno v. McGinn · filed 2022-02-28(a)(6)

Accordingly, I conclude that the requirements of exception from discharge are satisfied as to a one-third portion of the amended judgment. The interest and costs accrued on the one-third portion of the principal are, no less than the principal, debt for the willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts statutory copyright damages from discharge when intentional infringement causes willful and malicious injury.

Christ Center of Divine Philosophy, Inc. v. Elam · filed 2022-03-02(a)(6)

Elam’s infringement was therefore an intentional tort meeting both the “willful” and “malicious” requirements of § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) can except emotional distress damages from discharge when the debtor intended the injury.

Smith, Jr. v. Lookofsky · filed 2022-02-22(a)(6)

Emotional damages would not fall under the purview of §523(a)(2) or (4) but can be considered under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) permits a nondischargeability claim based on plausible allegations that a debtor intentionally and maliciously injured a creditor.

Ibrahim v. Sabri · filed 2022-03-24(a)(6)

These allegations are sufficient to state a facially plausible claim under §523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6)’s willful injury element is sufficiently pleaded by allegations of intentional fraud that the debtor knew would harm the creditor.

Sorensen v. DeWall · filed 2022-03-29(a)(6)

Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant intentionally and knowingly committed fraud, which Defendant knew would harm them. Because Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts that could warrant a finding of such fraud (Defendant acknowledged as much in the telephonic hearing), and fraud is an intentional tort, the “willful” element of § 523(a)(6) has been sufficiently pled to survive Defendant’s Motion.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury; speeding and driving without insurance do not alone establish one.

Fuller v. Wallette · filed 2022-04-01(a)(6)

As to the latter, § 523(a)(6) applies only to debts for willful and malicious injury to person or property. ... Even assuming the facts alleged are true, as the Court must when considering a motion to dismiss, these facts do not demonstrate that Defendant owes Plaintiff a debt for a willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof that the debtor intended to cause injury for the willful and malicious injury exception to apply.

Tavadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitchell · filed 2022-04-05(a)(6)

The Plaintiffs’ proof on claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) were lacking on the element of intent.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from discharge; negligence or recklessness does not establish willful injury.

Chodosh v. Hua · filed 2022-04-08(a)(6)

Negligently or even recklessly inflicted injuries are not excepted from the discharge.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of a willful and malicious injury; an intentional breach of a noncompete agreement alone does not establish one.

Edwards Moving & Rigging,Inc. v. Jenkins · filed 2022-04-14(a)(6)

But those facts, standing alone, do not establish that Jenkins’ violation of the noncompete agreement constitutes a willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6) as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of both willfulness and malice to except an injury debt from discharge.

Hurst v. Curtis · filed 2022-05-04(a)(6)

Nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury requires proving both willfulness and malice.

Section 523(a)(6) can except a debt from discharge when a breach of contract is accompanied by willful conversion.

Select Bank & Trust Company v. Crawford · filed 2022-05-12(a)(6)

However, a breach of contract “accompanied by some conduct that is legally wrongful or tortuous,” such as willful conversion, could satisfy § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof that the debtor intended injury or that harm was objectively substantially certain; a breach of contract alone does not establish either.

Wilson v. Silva · filed 2022-05-20(a)(6)

The Court notes that the breach of a contract gives rise to damages, but there is insufficient evidence to find that Silva’s breach of the agreement demonstrates subjectively or objectively an intent to harm Wilson.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a willful injury; a debtor who lacks the intent to cause injury because of acute psychosis does not meet that requirement.

Lombardi v. Picard · filed 2022-06-10(a)(6)

Under the specific circumstances of this case, and in consideration of all the information of record, the Court holds that the Debtor’s actions were not willful because he lacked the requisite intent given his psychotic break from reality, and therefore the Civil Judgment will be deemed dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) did not except a dog-attack debt from discharge without proof that the debtor knew or had reason to believe the dog would attack.

Tepes v. Sage · filed 2022-06-15(a)(6)

Thus, in order to prevail, Tepes needed to offer facts at trial that demonstrate that at the time that Fury attacked the Plaintiff’s Yorkies, the Debtor either knew her dog was vicious or had reason to believe that Fury would attack.

Section 523(a)(6) turns on the debtor’s intent to cause injury; the creditor’s belief about whether he was injured does not resolve the claim.

Coffman v. Deuel · filed 2022-06-22(a)(6)

Whether Plaintiff believed he had been injured by Defendants’ is irrelevant to this cause of action under either the objective or subjective tests. It is a debtor’s intent that matters under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Thus, a genuine issue of material fact remains.

Section 523(a)(6) does not require personal animus for an injury to be malicious.

Bloom v. Glencove Holdings · filed 2022-07-12(a)(6)

Even considering it on appeal, however, Mr. Bloom cannot succeed because personal animus is not a requirement for malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a subjective motive to cause harm or objective substantial certainty of harm; a jury finding that could rest on recklessness does not establish that requirement for issue preclusion.

Mahadevan v. Bikkina · filed 2022-07-26(a)(6)

The jury’s disjunctive finding, that Mahadevan acted with malice or oppression or fraud, prevents the application of issue preclusion on the record Bikkina presented at summary judgment, because the jury did not clearly decide that Mahadevan had acted with objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully causes injury without just cause or excuse.

Bengtsson v. Yin · filed 2022-08-05(a)(6)

In short, each part of the Plaintiff’s claim arises from the Debtors’ willful acts, intended to cause harm to the Plaintiff, and satisfies the “willful” and “malicious” prongs of § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor to sufficiently allege maliciousness to state a claim that a debt is excepted from discharge for willful and malicious injury.

Xin v. Zhu · filed 2022-08-12(a)(6)

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for relief under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code because they have not sufficiently alleged maliciousness.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from discharge; allegations of intentional conduct causing such injury can state a claim.

Dobronski v. Garcia · filed 2022-08-16(a)(6)

Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts, if proven at trial, to establish a claim for damages under the TCPA and to state a claim under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523 excepts debts obtained by false representations and debts for willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Leon v. Bianco · filed 2022-08-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Based upon all of the foregoing, the Court finds and concludes that the Biancos owe the Debt for Advances, totaling $237,210, to the Leons on the basis of their liability to the Leons for fraudulent inducement, and that such Debt for Advances is nondischargeable under sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(6) requires an intended or substantially certain injury; reckless conduct alone does not make the resulting debt nondischargeable.

Summit Hosting LLC v. Wilder, Jr. · filed 2022-09-01(a)(6)

The Complaint does not allege Defendant acted with the requisite intent or substantial certainty to injure Plaintiff when he recklessly permitted the unauthorized user into the system. The allegations relating to Cyber-Attacker Access therefore do not support a finding of nondischargeability pursuant to section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from a debtor’s willful and malicious injury to another person or that person’s property.

Toxpro Laboratories, LLC v. Rosenburg · filed 2022-09-06(a)(6)

Therefore, the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish that Mr. Rosenburg willfully or maliciously injured the Plaintiffs or their property.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully and maliciously injures another person.

Girard v. Parkhurst · filed 2022-09-09(a)(6)

The evidence established both willfulness and maliciousness under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The debt owed to the plaintiff is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor intentionally causes injury through a wrongful act done without just cause or excuse.

Perlenfein, Inc., dba B&R Auto Wrecking v. Smith · filed 2022-09-26(a)(6)

Therefore, the debt from the Settlement Agreement reflects damages incurred by willful and malicious injury to Perlenfein and is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires intent to injure; violating a strict liability wage law alone does not make the resulting debt nondischargeable.

Simoes v. Sivieri, III · filed 2022-09-29(a)(6)

Violation of a state strict liability statute alone is insufficient to demonstrate the requisite intent to injure required by § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) treats a false imprisonment debt as arising from a willful injury when the debtor intended to confine the victim, even if the debtor did not intend the confinement to be unlawful.

Watson v. Bradsher · filed 2022-08-12(a)(6)

We hold, in conclusion, that debts resulting from the intentional tort of false imprisonment are debts for “willful . . . injury” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) when the debtor intended to confine his victim. It is not necessary, for the purpose of willfulness, that the debtor intended this confinement to be unlawful.

Section 523(a)(6) makes treble damages for intentional conversion nondischargeable when the debtor willfully and maliciously injures another’s property.

Jarrett v. Scheib · filed 2022-10-31(a)(6)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds in favor of Silvera on her conversion count and will enter a treble damage, $1.5 million nondischargeable judgment against Scheib under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge only the amount of debt attributable to a willful and malicious injury.

Swan Pediatric Dental, LLC v. Hulse · filed 2022-11-08(a)(6)

Without sufficient factual findings (from the arbitrator or the Bankruptcy Court) to apportion the nondischargeable defamation damages from dischargeable breach-of-contract damages, the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding the entire $345,000 of underlying damages nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor acts with objective substantial certainty or subjective motive to cause injury.

Jackson v. Brown · filed 2022-11-14(a)(6)

Here, the Court holds that the actions of Brown in disposing of the vehicle without notice [again before and after the sale] to Jackson were with the objective substantial certainty or subjective motive to inflict injury by dispossessing him of his possession and possible ownership of the Barracuda, or after the sale inflicting injury by failing to provide notice of any required credits against the agreed upon sales price.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of malice to except a debt for willful and malicious injury from discharge; reckless disregard of a creditor’s interests alone is insufficient.

United Pulse Trading Inc. d/b/a AGT Foods USA v. Johnson · filed 2022-11-17(a)(6)

Debtor’s conduct unquestionably shows reckless disregard of United Pulse’s economic interests and expectancies, but absent additional aggravated circumstances, his knowledge that he was violating United Pulse’s legal rights is insufficient to establish malice. See In re Leubbert, 987 F.3d at 780. Because United Pulse failed to prove Debtor acted with malice, its claim under section 523(a)(6) fails.

Section 523(a)(6) excepted the malicious prosecution debt and related expenses from discharge as a willful and malicious injury.

Mikel v. Mikel · filed 2022-12-05(a)(6)

The evidence shows that Kandace caused a willful and malicious injury under section 523(a)(6), rendering nondischargeable Jeremiah’s mali- cious-prosecution claim for attorney’s fees and expenses of $40,000 and a bail-bond payment of $1,530.

Section 523(a)(6) treats an injury as willful when the debtor intended to cause it or knew it was substantially certain to result from his conduct.

IN RE: JAMES RODRIGUEZ V. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. · filed 2022-12-16(a)(6)

Conduct is willful within the meaning of § 523(a)(6) if the debtor (1) had a subjective motive to inflict injury, or (2) knew that injury was substantially certain to result from his conduct.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a willful injury; an earlier verdict that may rest on recklessness does not conclusively establish willfulness.

Cloutier v. Borg · filed 2023-01-18(a)(6)

Nevertheless, considering the unsettled nature of the law in this Circuit, the Court declines to find the Defendant collaterally estopped from arguing that the injury was not willful, particularly given the subjective standard is the majority rule. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude, on the undisputed facts as a matter of law, that the injury was willful.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a debt for injury that the debtor caused willfully and maliciously.

Robertson v. Murray · filed 2023-01-18(a)(6)

The $75,000 compensatory damages award is therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires both willful and malicious injury; intentional discovery misconduct can establish willful injury, but malicious injury also requires proof that the conduct lacked just cause or excuse.

Glatz Aeronautical Corp. v. Ringgold · filed 2023-01-23(a)(6)

The Summary Judgment Motion is granted with respect to Glatz’s burden of establishing that the August 2017 Sanctions Order represents a nondischargeable debt for willful injury within the meaning of §523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Summary Judgment Motion is further granted with respect to Glatz’s burden of establishing that the August 2017 Sanctions Order represents a debt based on a wrongful act, done intentionally, which necessarily caused injury, but is denied with respect to Glatz’s burden of establishing that such act or acts was done without just cause or excuse (the “Just Cause or Excuse Issue”).

A complaint can state willful injury under § 523(a)(6) by plausibly alleging that the debtor knew a dangerous defect was substantially certain to cause injury.

Heyerholm v. Johnson · filed 2023-01-24(a)(6)

A defective transmission that could cause a boat to go into reverse does state a claim. It is possible such conduct was substantially certain to result in injury if someone was directly behind the propellors of the boat. So the complaint’s allegation of willfulness is enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury was both willful and malicious to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Countryside Service Company v. Miller · filed 2023-02-14(a)(6)

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was malicious but has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was willful under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires a deliberately inflicted injury; malicious conduct alone does not establish that exception to discharge.

Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Plevyak · filed 2023-03-08(a)(6)

The Court finds that Solar has not established that Debtor’s conduct was meant to deliberately, intentionally, or maliciously injure Solar.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for willful and malicious injury from discharge, and findings in a prior final judgment may establish those elements through issue preclusion.

T.H Glennon Co. Inc. v. Monday · filed 2023-03-09(a)(6)

In sum, this Court finds, and rules, that the District Court’s findings included in the Ruling establish that the issues of injury, willfulness, and maliciousness were involved in the prior action, were actually litigated, were determined by a valid and binding final judgment, and were essential to the District Court’s Judgment.

Section 523(a)(6) requires intent to injure for willfulness; a verdict establishing intentional interference alone does not preclude litigation of willfulness in bankruptcy court.

Heinrich v. Bagg · filed 2023-03-24(a)(6)

But these findings do not establish that the Baggs intended to injure Heinrich. Because the jury’s verdict does not establish an intent to injure, the verdict did not preclude litigation of the willfulness component in bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(6) requires willful injury; a finding of intentional interference with a contract does not by itself establish willfulness or preclude litigation of that issue.

The Estate of Brian Collins v. Milwaukee County · filed 2023-03-24(a)(6)

The jury’s verdict established that the Baggs’ filing of the state-court lawsuit conveyed to Gatlin that they wanted to influence him not to deal with Heinrich, and that they intended to interfere with Heinrich’s contractual relationship with Gatlin (or knew the lawsuit likely would interfere). But these findings do not establish that the Baggs intended to injure Heinrich. Because the jury’s verdict does not establish an intent to injure, the verdict did not preclude litigation of the willfulness component in bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(6) requires facts supporting a willful and malicious injury; allegations of reckless conduct alone are insufficient.

Beery v. Roper · filed 2023-03-24(a)(6)

Even accepting Appellants’ allegations as true and drawing all inferences in their favor, the Court finds Appellants’ pleadings insufficient to state a claim of willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt based on negligent injury from discharge.

Jesse Dakota Yount · filed 2023-03-24(a)(6)

Generally speaking, a negligence claim involves neither willful nor malicious injury, and thus it does not fall within the exception to discharge under Section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of willful and malicious injury to except a debt from discharge.

Pier 48 Indy LLC v. Knipscheer, Jr. · filed 2023-03-28(a)(6)

Neither the Admissions nor the Stucker Affidavit set forth the facts necessary to show the “willful and malicious” elements that must be proven to prevail under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for intentional injury from discharge, but does not cover injuries caused by negligence.

Colussi v. Eltoweissy · filed 2023-03-28(a)(6)

Thus, Colussi’s claim for negligence is not covered by § 523(a)(6) and is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge only when it results from a willful and malicious injury; negligent or reckless injury does not qualify.

ATLANTA POSTAL CREDIT UNION v. Newsome, Jr. · filed 2023-03-30(a)(6)

If he acted negligently or recklessly, the resulting injury is not sufficient to support nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves a willful and malicious injury by the debtor.

Rable v. Childers · filed 2023-03-30(a)(6)

There was no evidence presented which could support a finding of a willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from discharge; findings established in a prior judgment can satisfy its elements through collateral estoppel.

Brothers of the Wheel MC Executive Council, Inc. v. Mollohan · filed 2023-04-04(a)(6)

As discussed herein, the issues resolved in the District Court Action satisfy the legal test to render Defendant’s debt to BOTW nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) applies the same willful and malicious injury standard to conduct committed by a minor as to adult debtors.

Burritt v. Hoven · filed 2023-04-11(a)(6)

In turn, no age restriction is stated in section 523. The standard for willful and malicious injury is the same that would be applied to adult debtors.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof of an intended injury; a prior judgment’s conclusory statement that the debtor acted intentionally and maliciously does not establish nondischargeability through issue preclusion.

Prentice v. Yocum · filed 2023-04-13(a)(6)

The problem for this Court is none of the Judgments, and nothing else in the Judgment Roll as presented, addresses Debtor’s state of mind or intent in connection with his “misconduct” as required under Section 523(a)(6) other than the statement Debtor acted “intentionally and maliciously.” This is not enough to apply issue preclusion to Plaintiffs’ Section 523(a)(6) claim.

Section 523(a)(6) requires an intentional injury, not merely an intentional act that causes injury.

In Re: Lisa Garcia v. Fawzy · filed 2023-04-24(a)(6)

A willful act under § 523(a)(6) is an act that deliberately or intentionally causes an injury, “not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.” Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998).

Section 523(a)(6) makes abuse-of-process damages nondischargeable when the judgment establishes that the injury was willful and malicious.

BANER v. CHARLES · filed 2023-04-24(a)(6)

For this reason, the jury’s award of damages on the abuse of process claim established that the compensatory damages were for willful and malicious injury that are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) permits a prior finding of willfulness to be preclusive, but a finding of maliciousness under a less demanding standard does not establish malicious injury.

SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gross · filed 2023-05-05(a)(6)

SmartSky’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; granted inasmuch as the court found issue preclusion establishes willfulness and denied as to maliciousness.

Section 523(a)(6) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor intended to cause the specific injury for the debt to be nondischargeable.

Roman Stone Works, Inc. v. Hidalgo · filed 2023-05-15(a)(6)

The standard for “willful and malicious injury” under section 523(a)(6) requires Plaintiffs to prove that the Debtor intended to cause the specific injury Plaintiffs suffered.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully injures a creditor and acts with malice targeted at that creditor.

Garven v. Paczkowski · filed 2023-05-22(a)(6)

Because the findings in the MUVTA Litigation demonstrate all three elements of a “willful and malicious injury” under § 523(a)(6), Debtor is estopped from relitigating or contesting the nondischargeability of the Garven Plaintiffs’ claim.

Section 523(a)(6) requires both willful and malicious injury; recklessness alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Ford v. Frey · filed 2023-06-21(a)(6)

Regardless, even if Frey’s actions were reckless, they do not rise to the level of intent required by both prongs of the § 523(a)(6) test.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a sexual harassment debt from discharge when the debtor knew his conduct was substantially certain to cause injury.

Ronan v. Knochel, III · filed 2023-06-30(a)(6)

Finally, the facts of this case, as independently reviewed by this Court, leads to the conclusion that Dr. Knochel did have the requisite Section 523(a)(6) intent.

A judgment debt for willful and malicious injury is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Stutsman Construction, LLC v. Adair · filed 2023-07-14(a)(6)

Accordingly, the debt evidenced by the Judgment is deemed nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code on account of Stutsman’s willful and malicious injury suffered at the hands of Shaun.

Section 523(a)(6) does not require a creditor to specify the precise harm suffered when proving a willful and malicious injury.

PIRTEK USA, LLC v. Lager · filed 2023-07-20(a)(6)

As such, the Court rejects the Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has failed to fulfill its burden by failing to specify the “precise harm” it suffered; and, accordingly, the Court will next consider the knowledge and intent of the Defendants at the time of the breaches.

Section 523(a)(6) does not require a debtor to anticipate every resulting medical complication when the debtor intentionally causes bodily harm.

Albert v. Nason · filed 2023-09-08(a)(6)

That constitutes a willful injury under section 523(a)(6). Nothing more specific is required.

An allegation that a debtor entered an insurance agreement without intending to perform can state a § 523(a)(6) claim for willful and malicious injury.

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Hardin, III · filed 2023-09-22(a)(6)

At this stage, the Court ... cannot find that the Complaint fails to state a claim that the debt is for a willful and malicious injury caused by PMSG/Hardin’s entry of insurance agreements without the intent to perform.

Section 523(a)(6) excepted the debt arising from a debtor's unjustified misappropriation of his employer's valuable information from discharge.

Kerin Enterprises Holding Company, Ltd., as Succes v. Marklin · filed 2023-09-27(a)(6)

The record at trial supports a finding that the Defendant misappropriated his employer’s assets by copying its valuable information and providing it to a competitor company and proffered no justification for his actions. The Defendant’s conduct, when considered in the context of federal bankruptcy law, is sufficient to satisfy § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) requires the creditor to prove both willfulness and malice by a preponderance of the evidence to except an injury debt from discharge.

Plaza, Jr. v. Heilbron · filed 2023-09-28(a)(6)

In order to establish nondischargeability, Mr. Plaza must prove both willfulness and malice by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from a Chapter 7 discharge, but the exception does not apply to an ordinary Chapter 13 discharge; it may apply if the debtor receives a hardship discharge.

Deitrick v. Yoncuski · filed 2023-09-29(a)(6)

A §523(a)(6) claim may be viable in a Chapter 13 if the Adams Defendants were to seek a hardship discharge pursuant to §1328(b), in which case, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(d) allows a complaint to be filed on thirty days notice. For this reason, Plaintiff’s §523(a)(6) claim against the Adams Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice subject to either a reconversion to Chapter 7 or a hardship discharge under §1328(b).

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt from discharge for a knowing breach of contract alone; the creditor must prove a willful and malicious injury.

Scism v. Wise, Jr. · filed 2023-09-29(a)(6)

If it were, every knowing breach of contract would be nondischargeable, and that is not the standard for a “willful and malicious injury” under § 523(a)(6).

Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress was excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6) when the debtor intended the injurious consequences.

Heslin v. Jones · filed 2023-10-19(a)(6)

Based on these findings, Heslin and Lewis have a right to payment based on liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a debt and associated costs arising from a willful and malicious injury to another person’s property.

Bennett v. Moulton · filed 2023-10-25(a)(6)

Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that Ms. Bennett is entitled to a declaration that the portion of the judgment debt and the costs awarded on account of the car is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) as a debt arising out of a willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a debt for an intentional invasion of privacy when the injury is targeted at the creditor and the debtor knows harm is likely.

Beans v. Lindgren · filed 2023-10-30(a)(6)

An intentional interference with a plaintiff’s right to privacy, in violation of the Nebraska statute, can be considered a willful injury for the § 523(a)(6) analysis. Such an injury is also malicious, because it was targeted at the plaintiff and the defendant knew the plaintiff was likely to be harmed by it.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor willfully and maliciously causes injury.

Choi v. Hyon · filed 2023-11-08(a)(6)

And we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s factual findings show that Hyon did not willfully or maliciously cause Choi injury.